Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 2012

Vol. 773 No. 2

Consumer Credit (Amendment) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed) [Private Members]

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy and Halligan.

The previous debate on the personal insolvency legislation ties in with this debate on consumer credit. I fully support Sinn Féin's Bill and believe it should also be supported by the Government. It is estimated that 200,000 people have borrowed from the 47 licensed moneylenders, as well as the illegal ones. The largest sub-prime lender, Provident Financial PLC, lends to 100,000 customers in Ireland. In 2009, 75,000 people had credit from Provident. In 2010, it had increased to 88,000 and by 2011 it had reached 100,000. It charges €30 a day for every €100 borrowed for six months, a horrendous APR of 187.2%. Southside Finance Limited offers loans of up to €100,000 for 26 weeks with an APR of 128%. R&P Credit charges an APR of 195% on a €300 loan over 21 weeks. These are the rates of the legal moneylenders. Can anyone estimate the rates charged by the illegal operators?

Illegal moneylending is becoming a significant problem. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul claims illegal moneylenders have mushroomed during the economic crisis with little action taken to curb their activities. It is a scandal that thousands have been driven into poverty by the actions of the banks and the Government's continued austerity measures. The rise in the number of people availing of Provident's services bears this out. Due to the lack of available credit, it is hard for many people to get loans, forcing them to borrow from moneylenders and loan sharks for day-to-day needs. The Government should hang its head in shame that people are being forced into such a position due to its continued austerity measures.

The gap between rich and poor is also continuing to grow. Recent figures from Social Justice Ireland show that the poorest families experienced an income drop of almost 20% in one year while the incomes of the richest increased by 4%. Yesterday, when these figures were brought up with the Minister for Social Protection during Question Time, she fobbed it off claiming it occurred when Fianna Fáil was in power. However, Social Justice Ireland stated in its report that the Government's continuing austerity measures are creating this inequality.

I support this Bill and I hope the Government will too as it is an opportunity to deal with the issue of predatory loan sharks.

The only people who would seek funds from the lending institutions in question would be those without or who cannot afford bank accounts. For the majority of those in such a position, it is not a choice but a matter of economic circumstances as bank accounts cost money. These are the target group for sub-prime lenders. They are also the most vulnerable in our society and are the ones who most need protection. However, last night, the Minister of State told us that putting a generous cap on the interest charged by these institutions would close down the industry and lead to an increase in illegal moneylending. There seems to be such certainty about this, so much so the Minister's speech could have been written by the likes of Provident.

According to Bloomberg, Provident is expected to have revenues of $1.1 billion in 2013 and it aims to be the main provider of credit of €65 billion to 10 million people in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Provident describes itself as a non-standard provider of home-delivered credit for unsecured consumers. It sounds great but it really is just door-to-door lending and collection.

All the Government's concerns seem to be towards the industry. Industry used to have a more benign meaning – the dictionary definition was of a manufacture or a trade – but this credit area is a trade in human misery, particularly when one considers rates as high as 187% charged on loans. This is in a Republic which is supposed to be government by the people for the people. For whom though? It is ridiculous no cap can be applied to the interest charged. This Bill seeks to do that which is important as there is little point in sending people to agencies such as the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, if we do not deal with the cause of debt problems through such moneylending. There is a precedent in this respect as credit unions have a cap on the interest they can charge.

It is obvious there is an increase in personal debt levels which will result in more people being pushed towards this sector. More will need protection from these lenders. Why has this matter been a low priority for the Central Bank? Why has it been a low priority for the European Union which regulates pretty much everything else? Why is it such a low priority for the Government when clearly more people will require the protection provided for by this Bill?

I want to concentrate on illegal moneylenders whom I can only describe as vermin, parasites and sub-human as they prey on the most vulnerable in society. The amount of illegal moneylending going on is not documented enough. Many of these illegal moneylenders are criminals which has been well-documented by RTE and other news reporters. Over the past several years, it has become a growing problem in Waterford city as well as in other towns and cities. These illegal moneylenders prey on the most vulnerable in society, those with no or poor credit rating. More and more people are falling into their vicelike grip. Ordinary citizens may require a financial dig-out at some stage in life. It may be to meet expenses for a communion, confirmation or even a family bereavement. Due to their credit circumstances they cannot go to the credit union or the bank for a loan. Instead, they have no option but to deal with illegal moneylenders. Moneylenders humiliate, harass and even threaten people when it comes to repayment.

How many licensed moneylenders have been complained about to the Financial Regulator? How many illegal moneylenders have been brought before the courts over the past two years? I suspect none. Those agencies that deal with those on poor incomes, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and MABS, state the problem of illegal moneylending is a significant issue in most cities. It would bear well on us to find out if we have prosecuted any illegal moneylenders.

No, we have not.

None has been prosecuted in the past seven years.

That is unbelievable. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, to consider the pressure exerted on some people by moneylenders who are forcing those to whom I refer to go to their local post offices and withdraw their children's allowance to pay the money they owe. People are also being harassed outside their children's schools and when they go shopping in supermarkets by thugs who can afford to drive around in cars with 2010, 2011 and 2012 registrations as a result of the vast profits they are making from moneylending. As Deputy Jonathan O'Brien stated, we have not prosecuted one illegal moneylender. That is a shameful response on the part of society, legislators and the Garda.

The next speaker is Deputy Heather Humphreys who is sharing time with Deputies John Lyons, Mary Mitchell O'Connor, Alex White and Catherine Byrne. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I compliment Deputy Pearse Doherty on introducing the Consumer Credit (Amendment) Bill 2012. While I will not be supporting it, I recognise the spirit in which the Bill has been brought forward and welcome the opportunity it affords us to discuss the issue of moneylending. This debate is important because it highlights the activities of moneylenders and the negative impact their activities can sometimes have on relationships and families.

It should be pointed out that people are entitled to borrow money from whomever they want. That is their right and we cannot stop them from doing so. The problem with moneylenders, however, is often the lack of transparency in their dealings. This is a matter which must be addressed. What is of critical importance in the context of moneylenders is that people should be fully aware of the commitments they are entering into with them. At times of economic hardship when people are often desperate, they may not be thinking straight and the possibility of quick and easy money can be a very attractive option that is difficult to resist.

One of my main concerns with moneylenders is that the people to whom they are lending often may not have the wherewithal to understand the cost of the loan or the nature of the commitment into which they are entering. In addition, they may not understand they will be obliged to pay a very high rate of interest which can often be in excess of 180%. The details of the loan can often be explained to them in an overly simplistic manner. For example, a person may be informed that a loan will only cost €5 per week. On that basis, he or she may be of the view that there is no problem and that he or she can afford to pay. The problem is, however, that he or she must pay a huge rate of interest. It must also be remembered that people often forget to examine the exact terms relating to a loan before they obtain it. As a result, they end up paying money back over a long period and, in some cases, indefinitely. That is why it is hugely important to ensure there is greater transparency of the way in which moneylenders sell their products. There is no great emphasis among moneylenders on a duty of care towards their customers, whereas credit unions offer people genuine advice and are up-front with them. Moneylenders do not seek evidence which shows that people can repay their loans and borrowers do not need to demonstrate an ability to repay. That is what often leads to huge problems down the road. This is a matter that warrants further examination.

I have referred to credit unions. The problem with them is that they can be reluctant to lend because they are now operating in an area which is highly regulated. As a result, credit unions are sometimes left with limited scope for social lending. That is regrettable because such lending has always been to the fore of the credit union movement. In fact, the need for social lending was one of the reasons the movement was established in the first instance. Credit unions are afraid to take undue risks by lending to people who cannot show that they are going to repay their loans. A member of a credit union may have a particularly good track record but because of the need for compliance with current regulations and the very strong emphasis being placed on the ability to repay, if he or she cannot demonstrate repayment capacity, the credit union will often be afraid to extend a loan to him or her. This often encourages people to go to moneylenders because it is their last resort. It is important, therefore, that the Central Bank take cognisance of the fact that the social lending of credit unions can play a very important role in combating the negative impact which borrowing from moneylenders can have on families. Nevertheless, the fact remains that credit unions cannot give out loans in circumstances where there is no chance of their being paid back.

Regardless of whether we like it, there is a demand for the service provided by moneylenders. For one reason or another, there are some who have burned their bridges with their credit unions and cannot obtain credit elsewhere. There are those who go to moneylenders for the simple reason that it is convenient to do so. Moneylenders provide a quick and personal service and some individuals like this. The fact is that if one obtains such a personal service, one must be prepared to pay a high price for it. There are certain people who accept this fact and have no problem using moneylenders. Ultimately, we must accept that moneylenders are providing a service that some people need. There is no harm in this, but we must ensure people are fully informed before they enter into any agreement. If a person needs a loan quickly and if he or she is prepared and able to meet the repayment schedule, that is fine. However, we need to examine how certain individuals have fallen prey to moneylenders. Those to whom I refer should be using the supports provided by the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, when they fall into arrears rather than seeking the services of moneylenders. The MABS will negotiate on their behalf and may arrange to take a deduction from either their wages or social welfare payments. In addition, it can also set up arrangements with credit unions. People must be aware that there are better alternatives available in order that they will not be obliged to pay the exorbitant interest rates charged by moneylenders.

As stated, it is at times of economic hardship that moneylenders come to the fore. Placing a cap on the rates they charge would be extremely dangerous because, as the previous speaker stated, this would only serve to encourage and promote the use of illegal moneylenders and thereby exacerbate the problem further. It is welcome that the Minister proposes to engage with the Central Bank to develop guidelines which will provide greater transparency of the rates charged by moneylenders and address the issue of ensuring licensed moneylenders will not earn big profits on the backs of vulnerable persons.

I jumped at the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill because I have quite a number of comments to make on moneylending. I grew up in Ballymun and still live there. As a result, I have first-hand experience of life in a family and neighbourhood where this is what people do if they want to borrow money. I do not like to make sweeping statements, but I imagine there are many Members of this House who have never witnessed at first hand what it is like borrow from a moneylender. The reality is that people do not borrow from them because it is an easy option. For many, it is the only option.

I am in complete agreement with the spirit of the Bill that has been brought forward by Deputy Pearse Doherty. However, I would like additional information to be provided in order that we might discover the exact amount being made in profit by moneylenders in Ireland. Is there, for example, concrete evidence which indicates that if we were to put a cap in place, licensed moneylenders would remain viable. As a previous speaker indicated, if we were to introduce a cap and some of the licensed moneylenders withdraw their services as a result, people would be forced to go to illegal moneylenders and that would make matters worse.

Everyone in the House will at some time or other have been obliged to borrow money to pay for Christmas presents or an event. Those who borrow from moneylenders use the money they obtain for the same purpose. However, some of them may borrow money to pay the for their TV licence. In that context, they will be obliged to pay an additional €100 on top of the €160 it costs to purchase such a licence. That is absurd. The activities of licensed moneylenders are regulated, but this type of thing is still allowed to happen. The difficulty is that those who borrow from moneylenders often have no other option. It is fine to state if we give everyone access to a bank account, this will be the beginning of the end of moneylending. I do not accept that. It is part of the solution, but a suite of measures will be required if we are to deal with this matter once and for all.

The culture of moneylending tends to be focused in areas in which there are high levels of disadvantage. There are large numbers in Ballymun, Finglas and similar places throughout the country who rely on moneylenders as a last resort. As Members are aware, those to whom I refer do their best to repay the loans they obtain. The fact is that when people who may be on low incomes or on social welfare get into that cycle, they get into a poverty trap. They might plan to spend a year paying off a loan they took out at Christmas, but if they need to get the house done up, or if a wedding or an unfortunate bereavement arises, they might not have paid it off by the time Christmas comes around again. People can get stuck in that cycle. We need to find some sort of solution to help them to get out of it. Some people have suggested some ideas in that regard.

I will give an example of such an idea. My niece Rebecca received over €900 when she made her confirmation a few months ago. My sister took her away on holidays to Bulgaria the other day. My mother told me that Rebecca had no money when she was going away. My sister had said she would try to ensure Rebecca put a certain amount of her confirmation money away as spending money for her holiday so she would not be asking her for money when they were away. None of the money was left, however. I genuinely think children need role models so that they appreciate the importance of trying to save a bit of money when they have it. We can all play a part in this longer-term solution.

Having worked in a school, I am aware that there are some really good schemes in our schools. This approach might not help people who are in debt now, but it will discourage those who have grown up believing one has to go to a moneylender if one needs money from getting involved in this activity. Many banks, credit unions and post offices run schemes in secondary schools to show people how to save. We are not necessarily talking about saving money. The first time I ever saved was when I was in third class, when I handed over 50p and received a "Cyril the Squirrel" savings stamp. Other Deputies probably did the same. If one filled one's book, one would be able to get £10 which could be placed in a bank or post office account. That was my introduction to saving. If there were more programmes of this nature, the number of people who do not know how to avoid debt problems would be reduced. I do not suggest it would solve the problems of those who are currently in debt, however. There are ways of stopping this cycle from repeating itself.

The information available to me suggests that the imposition of a cap, as proposed in this legislation, would not provide the full solution that is needed. If it did, I would be happy to support the proposal. I wish we could consider a more substantial proposal that would address some of the matters that have been raised in this debate. The reality is that those who engage in this form of borrowing have no other option. Those of us who borrow in other ways do not have to go to moneylenders. I remind those who participate in the debate on this issue that they are talking about real people with real lives. They are trying to make ends meet and to do the best thing for their families. That is what they want and what the rest of us want.

I cannot support this Bill, unfortunately. In the spirit of the proposal, I jumped at the opportunity to speak on it. I commend Deputy Doherty on this initiative. I hope we can find a more solid solution as part of a more comprehensive suite of measures aimed at addressing this issue. The reality is that people are being penalised. This country, despite the extent of its debts, is not having to pay the incredible interest rates these people are having to pay.

I thank Deputy Pearse Doherty for introducing this Bill and highlighting the scourge of moneylenders. A recent report claimed that one in 10 consumers has had to resort to moneylenders. This is concerning in light of the exorbitant interest rates some people are forced to pay. It has been claimed that people are being charged annual percentage rates of up to 287%. There are 47 licensed moneylenders in Ireland at present. The high number of unregistered moneylenders is most concerning. Mr. Brendan Dempsey of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has said that such operators have mushroomed in recent years.

Despite the reality that the registered and unregistered branches of this industry are thriving, nobody has been prosecuted for illegal moneylending in the last seven years. I consider the penalties that are imposed on those who offer illegal moneylending services to be insufficient. A person who is found guilty of illegal moneylending in the District Court faces a maximum fine of €3,000, a maximum prison sentence of 12 months, or both. A person who is found guilty of illegal moneylending in the High Court faces a maximum fine of up to €100,000 or a maximum prison sentence of up to five years. Given the level of APR that is levied by these companies, these fines do not represent an adequate deterrent.

People must be encouraged to come forward and report illegal moneylenders. Awareness campaigns conveying the dangers of engaging the services of moneylenders must be rolled out, especially at Christmas time when such companies target the vulnerable. People are not just borrowing for a one-off life events such as christenings, communions and confirmations. As a former school principal, I ask school managers to introduce a policy of allowing robes to be rented to communion and confirmation classes. That would reduce the costs involved. A survey that was conducted this year by the Irish League of Credit Unions found that 40% of people borrowed money to pay bills in the last 12 months. Some 10% of the borrowers in question went to moneylenders to obtain loans, thereby entering a cruel and vicious cycle that can be almost impossible to beat. There is no doubt that action must be taken this regard.

Ireland is not unique in terms of the rise of moneylenders and associated problems. Short-term loans and pay-day loans becoming prevalent in the UK. In 2009, it was estimated that credit amounting to £1.2 billion was provided by way of payday loans in that country. There is no limit on the amount of interest that may be charged on pay-day loans in the UK. In 2011, the Financial Times noted that pay-day lenders had been attracted by Britain’s relatively unchecked market. The volume of such business has increased to approximately £2 billion in the last four years. We do not want people who are in dire straits to get involved in pay-day loans.

I thank the Minister for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I acknowledge all of these issues, but I do not believe the Bill before the House provides an answer. It does not address the complexity of the issues. Moneylenders will not survive if they cannot charge rates above 40% APR. They will be pushed into the unregistered and unregulated market. I commend Deputy Pearse Doherty on bringing the Bill before the House. I am unable to support it, unfortunately, because I do not think 40% is a realistic figure.

I commend Deputy Pearse Doherty and his Sinn Féin colleagues on giving us an opportunity to debate this difficult and complex issue. The Deputy has done us a service in this regard. When I listened to the examples given by Deputies Lyons, Mitchell O'Connor and others, it struck me that moneylending is an ever-present phenomenon across the country. I do not think it is entirely confined to working-class communities, although I agree with Deputy Lyons that has largely been the case historically. A feature of the recent recession has been that moneylending has found its way into the community more broadly than ever. Deputy Heather Humphreys made the point that the need to borrow in this manner often arises from the difficult and traumatic circumstances people encounter when they burn their bridges with credit unions. They might be unable to return to their local credit union because they have defaulted on a loan. They might have tried to roll their liabilities over with new loans, only to find themselves trapped. That is when people end up going to moneylenders.

It is important for us to remember that moneylending itself is not illegal. In fact, it is legal. I do not disagree with those who talk about the need for prosecutions. However, prosecutions should and can be brought only in cases of illegal moneylending. It is important to remind the House - I am sure Deputies are aware of it - that moneylending is regulated in this country, even if it might not be sufficiently regulated. We might need to do an awful lot more, for example by amending the existing legislation. All of those points are well taken. The impression is sometimes given that the criminal justice system should round up the moneylenders. That is not the position we are in. It is not illegal. As others have said, people have the right to go to legal moneylenders and to borrow from them.

I would like to speak about Sinn Féin's proposal that the maximum rate that can be charged should be capped.

On the face of it, most would say it is a good idea. If we could make it so that people could get credit at the maximum level proposed by Deputy Doherty, I would have no difficulty supporting the Bill. The difficulty is that introducing a cap is not without consequence. This is the issue we must address. The Minister of State was clear at the outset that a cap of 40% would mean "moneylending would no longer be viable, licence renewals would not be sought and it would effectively close down the industry". That is a stark statement by the Minister of State, which I must take at face value. The explanatory memorandum of the Bill states: "A balance however must exist between a cap which prevents lenders charging usurious rates whilst, at the same time, allowing companies to charge a rate that enables them to continue to trade while factoring in the level of risk involved", which is an acknowledgement by the proponents of the Bill that a balance must be struck. I must take it seriously if the Minister of State judges that introducing this cap would essentially drive the industry underground and reintroduce the phenomenon of illegal moneylending.

I would vote for the cap of 40% if I thought that by doing so we would achieve the ends we all seek to achieve. However, I am not convinced. Deputy Doherty gives an example of a high interest rate and applies the interest rate to a reasonable example. He shows how a person would have to pay far less if the 40% cap applied and, on the face of it, that is true. However, what if the person could not obtain a loan? What if the moneylending agency did not exist? In that case, the example given by Deputy Doherty falls away because the person is unable to borrow. Deputy Doherty stressed that the introduction of the cap would have an immediate impact on tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of hard-pressed families. If I thought we would achieve that end by supporting the Bill, I would do so with a heart and a half. However, I must have regard to what has been said on the opposite side of the argument.

The challenge for the Government and all politicians is to determine the better course. We do not usually have the option of taking the ideal course. This arises in respect of the insolvency legislation, the sovereign debt issue and where to make budgetary adjustments. We cannot conjure an ideal for the people so politicians must take the better course. In this case, better education and better and fuller regulation of the market is what we should do. That is how we do least harm in this situation. For those reasons, I cannot support Bill but I commend and congratulate the Sinn Féin Party for producing it.

I commend Deputy Doherty for introducing the Bill. I listened with great interest to the debate last night and tonight from Members on all sides. I have raised this issue before and I have major concerns. I have spoken about it on numerous occasions, including to the Minister. Moneylending is as old as time and has become a tradition in some families and communities, when more conventional means of borrowing are not an option. The reliance on moneylenders is causing havoc in communities such as the one I represent, where people are getting into huge debt with no prospect of being able to repay. This also applies to people who had never before gone to moneylenders. We know that most people turn to moneylenders when they cannot get a loan elsewhere. Unfortunately, the trade-off for such quick access to a loan is the high interest rates charged.

We must distinguish between legal and illegal moneylenders because many are licensed and operate within the law. I have listened to the discussion on the interest rates for legal moneylenders. High interest rates should be reduced and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, is committed to approaching the Central Bank to speak about the issue. The high interest rates are legal because, we are told, they could not operate a viable business otherwise. A rate of 40% should not be the cap but rates such as 197% are totally unreasonable and must be addressed. There must be a realistic approach to limiting the interest rate for those who must borrow from these sources.

The real issue is illegal moneylenders, who all too frequently terrorise individuals and their families. I dealt with a girl last year who was followed to the post office by the moneylender when she withdrew her children's allowance. The moneylender waited outside to be handed the money owed. It is a terrifying experience for the many people who experience it on a regular basis. Where the traditional institutions are not an option, and when money is scarce, moneylenders are the only option for many people. A speaker last night said that parents must educate their children and encourage them to save and not to borrow unnecessarily. Sadly, those who go to illegal moneylenders do not have money beyond what is in their pockets. Many struggle to put a dinner on the table at the end of the week. If people do not have the money, they cannot save it. Let us not fool ourselves.

Very few people in this building have never borrowed money and it is wrong to say that borrowing and repaying money is confined to a certain section of people. The only difference is their access to loans from banks, whereas those who go to moneylenders do not have such access. How do we resolve the problem of illegal moneylending and how do we stop people getting themselves into massive debt? The Garda Síochána has a responsibility to pursue illegal moneylenders but it is difficult for them because I have spoken to people who are terrified to identify illegal moneylenders. It is difficult for the Garda Síochána to assist when people are not prepared to come forward. They are afraid of being harassed, of their children being harassed and of their homes being set upon. Our focus must be to deter people from relying on moneylenders, whether legal or illegal.

The only way forward is to provide small loans to those who need them and the credit union is an institution with the capacity to do so. The role of the credit union when I was growing up was to be the people's bank. It must continue to be the people's bank and give out small loans. It should be the first port of call for families in need. They need to open their doors and enable people on low incomes to borrow small amounts even if they do not have a good credit rating. While I accept that ability to repay is very important, it is possible that the credit unions can work with the Department of Social Protection, MABS and other agencies to operate a system of repayment via social welfare payments to the credit union. This would be an asset to those caught up in illegal moneylending. We urgently need to help those who cannot deal with banks and offer options other than borrowing from moneylenders. Last night the Minister of State said that all advertisements must contain the following warning in large font: "WARNING: This is a high cost loan". Unfortunately, many of those who must borrow do not read large or small font so, unfortunately, I cannot support the Bill. However, I think the Minister will continue to try to resolve this matter.

I understand Deputy Tóibín is sharing time with Deputies Crowe, Ellis, Ó Caoláin, Ó Snodaigh and O'Brien. Each Deputy has five minutes.

This is a modest Bill which seeks to cap interest rates on loans charged to the most disenfranchised and economically desperate of our citizens at 40%. It should be remembered that the group which relies most on these types of loans is the working poor. I am aware from my own constituency of Meath West that these are regular individuals who have suffered the consequences of the collapsed economy. They are working reduced hours or have lost their jobs and are consequently caught in the debt trap. These people should be protected and defended. Other speakers have agreed that it is unacceptable that rates can be set at X, Y or Z, but they will not go so far as to vote for a cap to be imposed. It has been claimed that the imposition of a cap would drive lending underground. The State has decided that the best way to deal with the drugs issue is to make them illegal and their sale a law and order issue. Surely driving illegal moneylenders underground will make their activity a law and order issue which can be dealt with as such.

Last night the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, outlined the Government's response to our proposal, a response that is endorsed by the Labour Party. Since I was elected to this House I have heard it repeated ad nauseam, by members of that party in particular, that Sinn Féin is a party of negativity, bereft of any ideas as to how the country should be run. This motion is the latest in a series of reasonable and progressive motions that we in Sinn Féin have brought forward in Private Members’ time, every one of which has been opposed by the Labour Party. It has opposed Sinn Féin motions to safeguard Moore Street, where James Connolly lay injured before giving up his command. It has opposed our motions to retain services at Roscommon hospital and to repeal the household charge. The Labour Party that marches proudly on May Day opposed Sinn Féin motions of support for schools in the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, scheme. Our motions to withhold the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note and to safeguard State assets were rejected. The Labour Party, a party of the left, has likewise opposed our motions to reverse cuts to community employment schemes and to retain the ESB in public ownership. Now the party which owes its political DNA to Larkin and Connolly is opposing a modest Sinn Féin motion to curtail the excesses of moneylenders. As the Dáil session draws to a close, one has to question the role of the Labour Party in government. How can it claim to have remained true in any way to its legacy and principles? The party has sided with commercial landlords to maintain upward-only rents. Its Ministers have delivered bailouts to bankers and sided with the developers in the National Asset Management Agency. The Labour Party in government has connived with employers to reduce the premium for Sunday working. Given that the party has so resolutely delivered Frankfurt’s way, it should be no surprise that it now proposes to deliver for moneylenders.

As we approach the summer recess, Government Deputies, Ministers and advisers will be flying away to the sun. When they walk past the airport porters, bar staff and waiters who are earning less on a Sunday because of the measures they introduced, let them reflect, as Labour Party Members, on what they have achieved. Let them explain to the 200 people leaving Dublin Airport daily to find work abroad the role their party has played in government. I am highlighting the role of the Labour Party in all of this because we expected better from it.

To put this debate in context, it is useful to consider some statistics. We know, for example, that the income of the poorest households in the State fell by more than 18% in a single year, while that of the richest increased by 4%. We also know that one quarter of credit card holders rely on those cards to make ends meet each month. Some 40% of people have borrowed to pay for household bills in the past 12 months, with one in ten availing of the services of moneylenders.

What strikes me in this debate is the number of Members who seek to justify the activities of moneylenders. We have been told that introducing legislation to curtail their practices would force lenders into illegal activity. Most of the legislation we discuss in this House is concerned in some way with preventing illegal activity. The reality is that some of the charges demanded by these legal moneylenders are criminal. No company can justify charging interest at 210%. We are talking about people who are in desperate circumstances, with no alternative means of accessing money. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, pointed out last night that 17% of people in this country do not have access to a bank account. How does the Government propose to address that scandalous situation? Will it demand, for instance, that some of the State-owned banks make lending accessible to these people? Unfortunately, I have not heard any solutions from the other side of the House.

It was suggested last night that people who have information about illegal moneylenders should take it to the Garda so that a conviction can be pursued. There was no mention that the last such case which went to court did not result in a conviction. I do not know what happened in that particular instance, but I am well aware that some of the cases which failed in the past did so because of intimidation. In one case, for example, the defendant had social welfare books belonging to different individuals. When the matter went to court, however, none of those individuals was prepared to give evidence. As I am speaking, there are people in my constituency being subjected to intimidation, some because of debts they owe and others because of drug-related matters. I know of people who were stabbed or otherwise assaulted, people who had pipe bombs placed outside their homes and had their doors kicked in. The Garda is aware of these incidents and we have discussed them at meetings of the local drugs task force. This crisis is ongoing right across the city and more than likely in towns and villages throughout the State.

It is easy for the Minister of State to say that people should come forward with information. The reality, however, is that a person who owes a drugs debt, for instance, and is being intimidated is caught between a rock and a hard place. Local gardaí cannot protect such people because they do not have the resources to place a 24-hour guard outside their house. Likewise, people continue to be exploited by moneylenders on the Government's watch. My party has put forward a reasonable solution to the problem, only to be met with bizarre objections and attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

What these people are doing is wrong and must be stopped. Provident, one of the most successful moneylending companies in the country, charges a much lower interest rate of 20% to its customers in Poland. Are we to believe that people in that country are so much more reliable than Irish people in repaying loans? These companies are being allowed to exploit people's desperation. People find themselves facing a situation, such as family illness or bereavement, a christening or communion, where they need to access money. They are not borrowing huge amounts, but the interest charged means the debt grows very quickly. They are then obliged to borrow from another source to repay the original debt and the situation quickly spirals out of control. In response to the solution we have put forward, we are told that the banking system might investigate the issue. Will the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, undertake instead to devise solutions that do not force people down this desperate path? Nobody in this House should attempt to justify that which is unjustifiable. The interest rates charged by these so-called legal moneylenders are a scandal.

Everybody in this House is aware that people throughout the country are struggling. In many cases, it is measures introduced in this Chamber, by this Government and its predecessors, which have landed people in difficulties. They are doing everything they can to keep their heads above water and make it to the next week with a little in their pockets and enough to pay the bills. The problem is that not every expense can be foreseen and even those who are not too badly off and have managed to budget will be hit. It might be a family illness or bereavement, the breakdown of the family car, or even a debt to a drug dealer. It is not possible to plan for such eventualities when one is barely making ends meet.

This is the point at which the moneylender comes in. Those lucky enough to have some convincing way to prove they can pay can go to a licensed moneylender and get the few hundred or few thousand euro they need to tide the family over and allow them to bob back up above the crisis that is unfolding and carry on the ordinary struggle.

The problem is not that the interest rate charged by the moneylenders is high but that it is extortionate and is not subject to a cap. In some cases, the annual percentage rate, APR, has been found to be 200%. It is argued that such high rates are required for the loan to be profitable given that they are made on a short-term basis and APR is an annual rate. This argument has some validity because short-term loans necessitate charging higher interest rates if they are to be financially viable for the lending company. However, elsewhere in Europe moneylending businesses get by just fine charging rates which are subject to a more strict cap than that proposed in the Bill. Sinn Féin proposes to limit to 40% the APR which can be charged by licensed moneylenders. Of 27 European Union member states, 13 have imposed legal caps on the interest that can be charged by licensed lenders. Spain, for example, applies a cap of 10% APR, while the upper limits imposed on APR in Belgium and France stand at 19.5% and 21.6%, respectively.

Like many other Deputies, I have dealt with people in my office who are unable to sleep at night because they worry about their inability to repay a loan they may have secured to pay the costs of a hospital stay or essential dental work. People are being taken advantage of and are having the incredibly difficult circumstances they face exploited by moneylenders who operate without restriction. If people are desperate, they will say "Yes" to any interest rate. The Government has a duty to stop some of the current practices, not least because of the highly damaging effect its policies and those of the previous Government had on the livelihoods of ordinary working class people, the very people who are the customers of moneylenders.

The Government's argument that the proposed limits would put moneylenders out of business is not good enough. To argue that businesses cannot operate unless they are able to charge exorbitant rates of interest is not acceptable. Having pursued all manner of policies which have taken money out of the local economy, it is shameful that the Government now rises to the defence of the moneylending industry. I am not sure whether its approach to the Bill reflects a simple refusal to support any measure proposed by Sinn Féin or the Opposition or if it is based on genuine concern for those who would charge 60% interest on a loan to pay for a medical procedure. Either way, it is extremely disappointing.

The policies of the Government will not do anything to help those who are already deep in debt to moneylenders. It is now refusing to prevent more people getting into similar circumstances. Some 300,000 people have loans from moneylenders and the 1.8 million people who have less than €100 at the end of the month are ripe for their picking. The Government stands not in the defence of such people but in defence of the industry that will exploit them in their time of need, simply because the concerns of those who elected it are not its priority.

Molaim an Teachta Dála, Pearse Doherty, as ucht an Bille seo a chur ós comhair na Dála. Is ceist fíor-thábhachtach agus is cinnte go bhfuil gá le h-athrú sa reachtaíocht atá ann faoi láthair. Tá daoine faoi bhrú uafásach, go h-áirithe daoine bochta, iad siúd is mó atá thíos leis an ngearchéim eacnamaíochta.

This is a progressive Bill designed to provide relief to the growing numbers of citizens who are becoming dependent on moneylenders. Why is such dependence increasing? The reason is that as a result of the policies of this Government and its predecessor, levels of poverty and inequality have increased and we have mass unemployment and social and economic exclusion of whole communities. The testimony of those working in the community shows that people are being increasingly denied access to credit in banks, if they ever had any credit in the first instance, and are exhausting their credit with credit unions. As a last resort, many more people are turning to moneylenders, both licensed and unlicensed. The State is failing in its duty to protect such people. The licensed moneylending sector is poorly regulated, the regulatory regime, such as it is, is much too complex, the rates of interest charged are exorbitant and the profit-making is excessive to the point of gross exploitation.

In a briefing on the Bill in this House yesterday, a representative of FLAC, the Free Legal Aid Centres, pointed out that when the organisation highlighted regulatory deficiencies in the moneylending sector to the Department of Finance, it was told the market will look after consumers. This is the type of thinking that led to the banking collapse. The Central Bank has admitted to FLAC that the regulatory regime for moneylending needs reform, but such reform is not its priority. Once again, it is the most marginalised who lose out as a result of this type of neglect. It is the woman who takes out a loan on the doorstep to make a Christmas for her children, the single mother who borrows to fund a first communion or the struggling parents who succumb to the moneylender to ensure their children can attend school with some dignity and have some chance of receiving a basic education.

There is a myth that licensed moneylending in this country is mostly carried out by small local operators. The reality is that the market is dominated by one highly profitable, British-based corporation, Provident, which is quoted on the London Stock Exchange. Provident is largely owned by financial services companies because its activities complement the policy pursued by the banks of seeking to exclude, in as far as possible, small and perhaps relatively unprofitable customers. It is estimated that the company has 100,000 debtors in this State but we do not know the size of its loan book, the full extent of its activities or the profits it sources here because European Union regulations treat Britain and Ireland as one region. As a result, figures for this State can be buried in the overall so-called regional account.

It is long past time for stricter regulation of the moneylending sector, greater transparency and some measure of relief for borrowers. Sinn Féin calls for a cap to be imposed on the interest rates applied to loans from licensed moneylenders. This measure is essential, especially as no cap is in place, presumably on the basis of the Department's spurious view that the market will look after consumers. The Minister may as well say the wolves will look after the sheep. As legislators, we must step in to protect members of the public. If it is the case that the Government will decline to support the Bill, I appeal to the Minister to indicate the steps he proposes to take to address this pressing issue and the timeframe within which he intends to do so.

The Irish League of Credit Unions estimates that 10% of people are turning to moneylenders to pay household bills. This is a significant proportion of the population and there is more than ample evidence in all our constituencies to indicate the numbers are growing. The Government must not sit on its hands any longer.

Sinn Féin is conscious of the need to avoid setting the APR rate too low as this could result in circumstances where licensed moneylenders leave the market to illegal operators which are worse again. Citizens need protection from illegal moneylenders. It beggars belief that there has not been a single prosecution for illegal moneylending in the past seven years, despite ample evidence of this activity taking place. I urge the Minister to recognise the seriousness of the position for many of our citizens by allowing the Bill to pass Second Stage. The Minister may then deal with it to his satisfaction on subsequent Stages.

Seo Bille ar ba mhaith liom a chur chun cinn nuair a thoghadh mé don Dáil don chéad uair i 2002. Ag an am, bhí me an-buartha, mar atáim ó shin, faoin mbealach ina bhfuil cead tugtha do reachmasóirí - mar sin atá i gceist - rátaí úis de bhreis is 200% a ghearradh ar dhaoine. Ag an am, i 2002, an ceann is airde a bhí ann ná 195%, agus feictear dom go bhfuil sé imithe in olcas ó shin.

Research carried out by the Irish League of Credit Unions shows that 40% of people have borrowed to pay household bills in the past 12 months and 10% are likely to use moneylenders. In November 2010, Sinn Féin carried out research in my area on the impact of social welfare cuts. We surveyed more than 270 social welfare recipients in dole queues and post offices in Ballyfermot and the south inner city. Our survey found that at the time more than half of respondents confirmed they were likely to borrow money to see them through Christmas. Since the survey, two further rounds of social welfare cuts were imposed by the previous and current Governments. The numbers borrowing to cover current spending are likely to be much greater by now.

Since then the Minister for Social Protection has driven more people into the hands of moneylending vultures. The underemployed who currently receive a partial jobseeker's benefit are about to get a letter giving one week's notice that their benefit is to be cut. The income of a couple with two children will be down from €186 to €149 per week, a cut of €37 per week or almost €150 per month. A cut of this size represents the difference between having the money to pay the gas or electricity bill and having to borrow the money to pay those bills.

Likewise, many workers approaching retirement will receive a much smaller pension than expected due to under-the-radar cuts being introduced in September through secondary legislation. Without notice, many pensioners will receive a pension far smaller than what they legitimately expected. A worker retiring from September onwards who expected a State pension of €225 will now get €30 less per week, an annual loss of €1,500, with even more lost in the case of a couple. These people are another category the Labour Party, in particular, is pushing into the claws of unscrupulous moneylenders, be they legal or illegal.

Tonight we are dealing with those moneylenders that are legalised by the State. These companies know exactly who they are targeting - financially struggling unemployed people. Anyone watching daytime television will see the sort of advertisement that is swamping television in Britain, which promises a quick fix. It is the same quick fix that is being suggested by companies located in Ireland to those who are unemployed and are being screwed by the Government - people whose incomes have been cut to the extent that they cannot put bread on the table or pay the gas and electricity bills that are arriving. They are seeking a way out and see these companies offering a quick fix, but the quick fix does not exist. The problem is that this Government and those before it have legalised the charging of exorbitant rates by legal moneylenders. That practice must end and this Bill is a mechanism for achieving that. If the Government has minor problems with it, it should at the very least allow it to proceed on Second Stage and deal with those problems on Committee Stage, as is often done with Bills that have minor problems. I urge the Government to do that.

In the last 17 months I have heard many speeches delivered with a brass neck by Ministers. Last night, however, I heard one of the most delusional speeches I have heard in all that time. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, argued that a consequence of capping the APR rate at 40% would be that "moneylending would no longer be viable, licence renewals would not be sought and it would effectively close down the industry." The only evidence the Minister of State put forward in his speech was research carried out in England that stated that for legal moneylending to be a break-even industry, an APR of 123% would be needed. That simply does not stack up. We heard last night from Deputy Doherty that at least 13 other EU member states have APR caps of between 15% and 25% and the companies that are engaged in legal moneylending in those member states are turning a tidy profit.

The Minister of State then went on to say that legal moneylenders service a gap in the market deemed to suit particular needs of customers - for example, convenience of payment or a long-standing relationship with a particular moneylender. What does that even mean? We are talking about the most vulnerable section of society. That is what the Minister of State is talking about when he speaks of filling a gap in the market. The reason is that the Government has abandoned that section of society. The policies the Government is pursuing, like those of the previous Government, are pushing that section of society further and further into poverty, forcing them to engage with moneylenders. The gap in the market exists because the political establishment does not have the moral or political will to stand up for the most vulnerable people in society. It is too busy kowtowing to the troika, the IMF, the German Government and anyone else who will pat the Taoiseach on the head.

The Minister of State's comment about having a long-standing relationship with a particular moneylender shows how far disengaged from reality he is. The reason individuals have long-standing relationships with moneylenders is that once they are sucked into that cycle, they cannot get out of it. That is the only reason they have such relationships. The most laughable suggestion I heard in the Minister of State's speech was his attempt to justify the charging of massive APRs by legal moneylenders. He said that all moneylenders, when advertising their services, must ensure their advertisements contain the following, in large font: "WARNING: This is a high cost loan". It is a pity we could not put a similar warning on the programme for Government, reading "WARNING: Contains false promises, lies and lots of bull". That would be a lot more appropriate.

I understand where Fine Gael is coming from in opposing this Bill but it beggars belief that there are Labour Party Deputies in this Chamber who will vote against this modest proposal - TDs from the so-called party of the working class. I have no doubt there are genuine Labour Party Deputies in this Chamber who are sick to their stomachs at the carry-on of the leadership of their party and how its members have conducted themselves as Ministers. This is a party that likes to portray itself as the guard dog of the Government, when in reality it has become no more than the lapdog of Fine Gael.

Perhaps I have misjudged some of those backbench Labour Party Deputies. Perhaps I was naive to think that at least some of them have principles and morals. Maybe those backbench Deputies are just blind to what Deputy Gilmore and the other Ministers are doing in Government around the Cabinet table. Perhaps they do not have the backbone to stand up to them and do what the Labour Party claims to do - protect the most vulnerable. Maybe they have just become too comfortable, keeping their heads down while the Tánaiste, a man with experience of wrecking more than one political movement in his lifetime, continues to wreck the Labour Party and everything it claims to stand for. It makes me sick to listen to some of the comments from the Labour Party backbenchers tonight. Not only does it make me sick, however; it pushes tens of thousands more people in our society - the most vulnerable citizens - further into poverty, causing them greater distress and difficulty. It does not have to be like that. Those Labour Party backbenchers can stand up and do what they were elected to do: protect the most vulnerable in society. They can do that at 9 p.m. by supporting this Bill and not acting as a mudguard for Fine Gael.

I would like to thank all Deputies from all sides of the House for their useful contributions to this worthwhile debate. The Government is well aware of the financial difficulties facing persons who have to resort to moneylenders for loans to meet everyday bills. This point was highlighted in the debate. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the legislation underpinning the moneylending service is robust and rigorously enforced. The interest rate charged by licensed moneylenders, which on the face of it seems particularly high, is one aspect that must be kept under review so as not to further affect vulnerable persons who, for whatever reason, have no other source of credit. I now turn to several issues raised by Deputies during the debate. As mentioned last night by the Minister of State, the Central Bank is the regulator for moneylenders and under section 93(10)(g) of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 the Central Bank may refuse to grant a moneylender a licence if in the bank’s opinion the cost of the credit to be charged is excessive or if any of the terms and conditions attaching thereto are unfair. Deputies raised the issue of the lower of interest rate charged in other member states. I am advised that it is misleading to attempt to make simple comparisons purely on the basis of money lending rates since the financial markets and the regulatory regimes for moneylenders that pertain in euro member states vary considerably. We will continue to monitor developments in the European Union.

The Central Bank has experience in licensing moneylenders and in examining what may be termed excessive or unfair lending as set out in section 93 of the Act. The Central Bank is best placed to develop guidelines which will provide greater transparency with regard to the rates charged. This a complex issue and it is vital when considering the need for further legislation to have the full facts in order not to exacerbate the current situation, to which Deputies alluded to during the debate. It may take time and effort but it is important that the appropriate policy is implemented.

Where a moneylender engages the services of a third party to collect debts on his or her behalf, he or she must have in place a written contractual arrangement that seeks to ensure that customers are treated in accordance with the provisions of the Central Bank's consumer protection code for licensed moneylenders. The moneylender must also inform the affected customer that the money lending arrangement has been assigned to a third party as soon as practicable following the assignment of the money lending agreement.

Deputies also referred to the work of the credit union movement to provide an alternative to those whose only recourse to credit is the moneylender. In the programme for Government the Government has recognised the importance of the credit union movement as a volunteer movement and distinguishes between credit unions and other financial institutions. Credit unions, operating close to the population they serve, remain a central part of the Irish financial landscape. There are in excess of 400 credit unions in the State and all communities should have ready access to a branch for savings and, in turn, for loans. The Government recently published the general scheme of the credit union Bill which makes provision for the future development of the credit union sector with a view to ensuring the continued access to reasonably prices lending by local communities.

Deputy Ferris referred to the delay in dealing with an appeal by a constituent to the Department of Social Protection. The person was then forced to resort to a moneylender for day-to-day expenses. I am advised by the social welfare appeals office that the number of appeals to that office has increased dramatically since early 2009. For the first half of this year alone, approximately 19,000 appeals have been received. In an effort to reduce the processing time for all appeals the Department has appointed 13 additional appeals officers since 2010, bringing to 40 the total number of appeals officers now serving. In addition the office has improved its business processes and its information technology support. I hope these actions will alleviate the problems drawn to the attention of the House by Deputy Ferris.

Reference was made in the debate to financial education. The National Consumer Agency has a statutory remit to promote the interests of financial services by providing information on financial services, including information on the cost to consumers and the risks and benefits associated with the provision of those services, and by promoting the development of financial education and capability. The agency consistently points out that consumers should consider the interest rate charged for credit arrangements and the overall rate of credit rather than simply focusing on the weekly or monthly payments. The agency also highlights the importance of checking that a moneylender is licensed and the dangers of dealing with illegal moneylenders. The agency has several financial education programmes targeted at various sectors of society. These include workplace financial programmes designed to provide employees with access to free personal finance education in their workplace. This information is impartial and is offered free of charge. It covers topics such as money planning, savings, insurance and pensions. The agency has also developed a scheme aimed at senior secondary school students and one for new parents, circulated though maternity hospitals to approximately 60,000 parents each year.

I thank Deputy Doherty for proposing the Private Members' Bill and all Deputies for the constructive debate on this important issue. This is a worthwhile debate and we must ensure that the implications of any amendment to the existing arrangements are fully considered. Deputies can rest assured that the Government remains fully committed to financial inclusion and to access to credit for all at a fair cost. The are 46 licensed moneylenders in the country. The debate was interesting and I will draw the debate to the attention of the Central Bank Governor so that he can reflect on how he moves it forward.

On the rare occasions when we hear the term "moneylender" we automatically conjure up an image of a shady character, usually a man exploiting the poor and vulnerable. Only the latter part of this statement is accurate. The poor, vulnerable and, above all, desperate are the main users of this service. Although it may offend our middle-class sensibilities moneylenders are, given the current environment, offering a service and I will return to this point later.

There is a perception in the public imagination of the moneylender as a shady male character. While it would be naive to suggest that such people did not exist, it is wide of the mark. The greater share of licensed non-banking money lending in Ireland is controlled by Provident Financial plc, a global company operating in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania and other jurisdictions. Provident is quoted on the London stock exchange and describes itself as a non-standard provider of home-delivered credit for unsecured consumers. In other words, it lends door to-door to people with no assets.

This is a lucrative business. According to Bloomberg, Provident will have revenues of $1.1 billion in 2013. In the long term Provident aims to be the main provider of credit to 10 million people in the UK and Ireland who collectively borrow €65 billion each year. In Ireland the interest rate charged is 187%. I took a cursory look at Provident's website. Upon first viewing one might think one had mistakenly entered a children's play site. The childlike nature of the site, with its bright colours and cartoonish characters, can seduce those in search of easy cash while concealing the dark underbelly that is money lending in Ireland. Various boxes on the webpage offer cash loans from €100 to €500 with low, manageable weekly repayments and no late fee. If these do not succeed in enticing the desperate then a subsequent box with the bold heading, "Can I get a Cash Loan?" might do so. This is aimed at people who may be unemployed, who have a poor credit history or who have been turned down before. The website answers in the affirmative suggesting that all circumstances will be considered and, using bold red lettering, invites the prospective applicant to "Get Started". Thus people begin their journey into a vicious cycle of debt from which few escape.

In this harsh, often hidden world the working poor, the under-employed, people with disabilities, members of the Travelling community, single mothers and other vulnerable people are consciously exploited through no fault of their own. These people are overwhelmingly concentrated in working class communities throughout urban Ireland. They live in neighbourhoods that have experienced virtually nothing of the Celtic tiger but everything that is bad and negative about the ongoing recession. In social, political and economic terms these people occupy the urban wastelands of contemporary Ireland. Thus far the political elite have continued to turn a blind eye to their plight. In many respects this in the most benign aspect of this tale.

More alarming and more politically relevant is the fact that the Government, through its austerity policies and the harsh budget, has essentially consigned these people to a life of poverty, uncertainty and to a future of endless scraping to just eke out some form of existence. The State's deliberate reproduction of a class of permanently poor people and its callous disregard of its responsibility to provide an adequate safety net for those experiencing economic hardship and living in poverty is nothing short of scandalous. Despite this, the State has no problem bailing out zombie banks and unknown bondholders. It can afford to pay thousands of euro in salaries to bankrupt developers, the very same people who bankrupted the State.

Provident's poor and vulnerable customers have no place in this discourse on banking, economics and the state of the nation. They are in every respect surplus to requirements - a lumpen population left to the mercy of money-lending vultures.

A recent policy briefing by Social Justice Ireland shows that the income of Ireland's poorest households fell by over 18% in a single year, while the income of the richest rose by 4%. The report suggests that the top 10% of the population receives almost 14 times more disposable income. In comparison, the poor are experiencing the worst income distribution over the past 30 years. This is clear evidence, as if any were needed, that current Government policy is class based in that it consciously and deliberately favours the rich over the poor and vulnerable. Put another way, there is something profoundly wrong with Government decisions that produce a lopsided distribution of income favouring the richest when Ireland's poor and those on middle incomes struggle to make ends meet. If anyone is in doubt about the negative impact of current Government policy on those struggling to get by, or of the impact of economic policy on class composition, then the stark reality is that as a result of a succession of austerity measures the disposable income of the poorest households fell by 18.6% in a single year, while the incomes of the richest rose by 4.1%.

Overwhelmingly, this has had a disproportionate impact on women and children. For example, over 200,000 children in Ireland are now believed to be living in poverty. Another 700,000 persons are at risk of poverty, and all the while unemployment is rising. Such figures are by any measure disgraceful and they reveal the profound disconnect of those in power from the reality of life for the low paid and the poor. This indifference and basic lack of empathy and humanity with their fellow Irish men and women is only superseded by an arrogance that emanates from the male-dominated middle-class elites who govern the country in their own interests.

Most of those who borrow from moneylenders in Ireland are women. There are cultural reasons for this but, more importantly, there are structural ones. For example, international research has repeatedly shown that poor households, whether in Ireland or in the developing world, are almost always headed by women. This explains why almost 80% of moneylenders who Provident employs are also women. These workers receive no wage - rather they work on commission.

There are a number of actions the Government could take immediately to loosen the grip of moneylenders in poor communities. It could compel the banks, almost all of which are now State-owned, to offer basic bank accounts to those with limited means. It could support Sinn Féin's Private Members' Bill and place a cap of 40% APR on licensed moneylenders. However, the most important requirement in tackling poverty and exclusion is the provision of sufficient income to enable people to live with dignity and in the final analysis, such a measure would also allow those who currently occupy positions of power in this country also to have some dignity. I urge all Members to support Sinn Féin's Private Members' Bill.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 88.

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Browne, John.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Brien, Jonathan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Pearse Doherty; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Question declared lost.
Barr
Roinn